Hey all, I know most of you guys have seen threads like these for the longest time and are pretty used to the questions that you get, but i've done some reading around here and on the various review pages and i'm still "confused"
I'm on a 5Dmk2. my current lens is a 24-105L and it's a pretty kick butt piece of glass for my walk about needs. But recently, I realise i'm getting more and more into landscape photography, that i figure a good wide angle lens will do me good. so i embarked on a research journey ( albeit a rather short but comprehensive one) and ended up looking at these two highly debated pieces of glass.
now i'm a sucker for a good deal i.e " cheaper glass with good IQ " and who isn't? but herein lies the problem i believe. There are 2 different camps with opposing views on which is better and what not. then there's the other camp that says tamron's and tokinas are better.
So for a person who's on the brink of parting with a hefty amount of money, he would want the best bang for the buck. either that or pay through the nose for the certain quality that awaits him.
all that redundant info aside, the biggest question lies in which is the better deal? I'm gravitating towards the 16-35 solely based upon it's F2.8 and that alone, and after seeing some pictures notice the difference between the 17-40 and the 16-35 in which for the 16-35, the corner's are much sharper.
so, here's the question, if i do get the 16-35, would i be very pleased with the results in shooting landscapes?
I know this post is "kinda" redundant, as i answered most of my own questions, but i'm just seeing who would advise me against this buy and why, so i can really work out if getting the 16-35 would really be the one to go for, cause getting something this expensive, would always warrant some thought before plonking down the cash.
thanks for taking the time to read this rather long and somewhat redundant post, but i thank you in advance if you take the time out to reply to this with your views and comments. =D
I'm on a 5Dmk2. my current lens is a 24-105L and it's a pretty kick butt piece of glass for my walk about needs. But recently, I realise i'm getting more and more into landscape photography, that i figure a good wide angle lens will do me good. so i embarked on a research journey ( albeit a rather short but comprehensive one) and ended up looking at these two highly debated pieces of glass.
now i'm a sucker for a good deal i.e " cheaper glass with good IQ " and who isn't? but herein lies the problem i believe. There are 2 different camps with opposing views on which is better and what not. then there's the other camp that says tamron's and tokinas are better.
So for a person who's on the brink of parting with a hefty amount of money, he would want the best bang for the buck. either that or pay through the nose for the certain quality that awaits him.
all that redundant info aside, the biggest question lies in which is the better deal? I'm gravitating towards the 16-35 solely based upon it's F2.8 and that alone, and after seeing some pictures notice the difference between the 17-40 and the 16-35 in which for the 16-35, the corner's are much sharper.
so, here's the question, if i do get the 16-35, would i be very pleased with the results in shooting landscapes?
I know this post is "kinda" redundant, as i answered most of my own questions, but i'm just seeing who would advise me against this buy and why, so i can really work out if getting the 16-35 would really be the one to go for, cause getting something this expensive, would always warrant some thought before plonking down the cash.
thanks for taking the time to read this rather long and somewhat redundant post, but i thank you in advance if you take the time out to reply to this with your views and comments. =D